The Times from London, Greater London, England • Page 3

THE TIMES, THURSDAY. APRIL 14, 1910. LAW REPORT, April 13. HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE. CHANCERY DIVISION tRf1, Vk.

J' stick Hwixnex Kadt.) (Bet art Mr. Jcmtt Dsn.tv. ani Ma. JCancr A. T.

1 mhd apU tin nn.l rrihun li. iritie a th fharrty OoMmMbMI HWil of the day hooh of Wrexham were entitled riMrwtkm are.rdinir to the days" during ho clergyman of Brymbo. I tftr tttibtoft, K.tv appeared for the plaintiff A Lift Accident. This wan an appeel fr mt BroCaptea PilllilJ four. The action brought by Alio Powell, a domestic servant employed a flat at 5.

Holland' park mansions. againM Mr. II. her employer, and Messrs. H.

X. and F. W. th owners of the flat, to recovtr damages for personal injuries auMainrd the sllc negti jr. nc the J.

f. Tbe jury found that there had no fcagmc on the part of the plaintiffs employer, hut found r.ainat the oilier defendanta with fiO damages. Against this finding Messrr. Jenkins appealed. It appeared th.

if tor (he convenience of the tenanta tbe 'defendants provided a lift for the purpose of raising urti. I. Mipplicd by tradesni" a Uoi, with a weight on tie up and down from below, building in iron guides and with the list. Mr. Kolmon rnnmnl hp china on I 'Molr 3 or October 6.

It was in the possession of defendants from that date to March 4, the date of in saie. iiic neienrlstit on IMoher 7. wn ttiIn iMBCgtoW furnish them with the UsU father had aid. hi hd "onl'v Mr. Davnr.

11 had a list of the prion paid for china. II. gave Mr. Abbey a list of the cdiecti nml showo.1 him some coloured phntoa Ids fatl hed had He told Mr. Ahli.v from villi father had U.mrht.

ivin ii.allv' M. ssrs. H. lirki. 1 Kllis.

and ot her dealers. He discussed the prices Mr. AhU did n't' nirowiay doubt paid sem arti. J. w.

not lie advisable hack. They said i defendants wrote things that it would offer. Thoe ar I i. I4 ami was pulled and saw 1 Mr. 11.

V. 11.11 f. tK creUriea of the local edu. ed r. in.

the bread, when aoinebodv null th down with the result that tbe top of it struts the piainil.I on the Dead. i nuMtig her the injuries plain.il of. The n. irliii. nee all srorK auain! defendants was that they had onMructed and k.vping it stationary at window.

Kvideno on Dei. nibt 1 it was out of repair. The jury breach of duty 111 supplying and mnintnminc' which was a source of danger to ihe oceupants of the flat who would be Uk. to use it and hat the plaintiff tuu noi snow a nu appreciate U3C risk ana agree lo take it upon h. rir.

The County Griort Judge entered juuauu ui ior tor piainiui against me second aeiena upon (Hiding. Mr. Pmfumo appeared for the appellants and Mr. E. F.

Iever and Mr. Hn Id Smith for tbe respondent. Mr. I'Roifiio submitted that there was no evidence There was absolute dttt on the owners of the flat to nrovidi a lift which should be safe, at their peril, the lift was' not out of repair when the accident occurred, with it. He referred to Indemaur v.

Dames" (L.K., I C.I., lU) Heaven v. Vender (1 1 Q.II.D., lluggett v. M.ers K.B.. at p. '83) I wis v.

Hona.1.1 (KM L.T. 634). Mr. Li.vki: submitted on the authorilv of "Miller v. Hancock" (I KM.

i' K.H.. 177 that there was a duly on the defendant, who Imd retained control rc.pec. hkely Mb. Jcstke D.vRM.Vii, in giving judgment, said, In this case I think the appeal should be allowed. i The facts are that the landlords let to Mr.

Thorndike flat snd 1 am content to take it that he also let him the use of a lift which the landlords provided and which it was the landlord duty to keep in repair. There is evidence that Mr. Thorndikc's servant was tint I be. r.uie th lift whs not constructed in audi l.v lir 14 "bwdulely safe however It was used. vi! i it Kh pn.vid.d that am I any accident fhun of Fnsland elerirv fc to len and ht i Mi i fl, "a' impatient and pulled down iSti 3Vi II" I'fi without inouiring through th MH aking tuN Tj.

ti flan h. iii. i ivam'a head was in th duties of th. master 1U'K teach the children Knglisli 1 the tru'tees should direct; and tli pnyrs pi ci tbe tnw Then la use h. Sunday schools, with ii' th.He wlv.

imr.nt i.eing I lisseuters. then an accident happen. Appa how the IM lvani h. ue ii. ur.sl.

ftrinc upon which Mr. Ix r. li. to support th. sch.H.l ing a Church school, but it was conteniplal tl the children of lid go.

Clause iV imp rtaut, iv. Icrgymon of Brymbo and Miners. r. to visit them, instruct and n. i.

any misconduct tn the etdiet of tbe iurv is established br the "Miller That was a case ii a landlord who had allowed a tenant the staircase, which be h. impu. dly cntraetetl to keep in repair, allowed il to becotue out of ts Kair. und I think that what was decided in that case i tor th. decision are best cxpr.

sj. judgment of Lord Justice Ib.wen. who said this without hix cud ii miistanc. Ji aniK ars obiou. when on what a flat of this kind only cm j.

the intended I Tin art of the bettt nd ll.servient to oth, plat, si appeared live it. nor would he be Rprvtfld in crdance vith the of It had been contended that no lion was required for the master be sch. me. the suhjeef mentioned Hi action should maintain th sinir. as.

wht. is cs ntial the enjoyment of th premises deii.is. d. and should keep it reas.jiably safe for the use of the tenants, and also of th.ji'e who would necessarily go up and down th iaiis in the ordiu. course of business wilh th tenants b.

cause of course a landlord know when he ls a lb! tlwt tradesmen ami her person. Inning I i in. with the tenant would render th whole ir.msact ion in. filcacious and ab urd if an implied undertaking wen not issum.sl on th part th landlord to maintain the ltaitc.se so far might b. n.

ssarv foe tlx reasonable onioym. of the .1 niis. piemis. N'. Jus ic did no! t'n obligation tl.e liindl th' stair case up which i.

id p. tumble. or by th" miMi of whi. h.iih Iv, a person u'ingit ouMn. ht Tint i I ngt which the been c.

i i ,1 to ki. 1 rdance with the The nt und. the dir. It is perfe tly obvious that vh sid. r.

in th Court of were iti a difli ulfy in un rst.sr.ding bow the do. trim had been ext nded so far it hid been. I think th" part of th judgment th Court of Appeal a al iip the autl'orit of v. IlunVo.k" ir in U'" J'' i lnsti.v Far l.v ic so iiupli. at und Hakir.g by the I y.

agent for Hury ti v.ith regard Jhtinp the mmu aivni, restiam ja, and o. It i. obvious tint, in a tie stion ii Wbetitet my arid wha implication of fact ought t. KINVS IJEXCH DIVISION. I l.

r. 'd to in'br Vth, (' I. 1.:. HIKF sTIiK Km.HMi. Mil.

landlord has linderl a l.f to keep th t.iirc. is light. i night if ncc'r. irv. MilW v.

Mi rs." it ins to m. that we are asked here xtend that doctrine thi the landlord here bound to provid a bit at all. I. lit he did so a allow .1 tenants to use it. and it tak hnt he impliedly ontrae' tint they should have have the right to use and that he would in repair.

That onlv apih. s. to me mind, to hing In a. tuallv provided. It is said that.

b. auf tt' lift might have en rut th re, it was negligent sere and not to sultitute something for it. the m.l ol litt it is sugp. ste.t that ti" ought to have jail is which could not Iks worked from belo p.iods from the lift. or i is suppesteil that the lift lifts, one for heavy poods and Ol t.

nti. of the local edu. Sheep Doz.s Chasing Rabbits Exemption from Thw was a case stat.sl by the Crediton i nwsed a as to whether a dog which was I as a sheep dog was entitled to exemption from I included in The china was pointed out him. aside piec they had selecte. On for illustration beem quality, and saleahh was to bring Contin ntal dealers.

He noticed that some pieces, for which his father had given v.rv high prices, were not included. One. was No. 21a. a pair of vases, which his th had bought from Mr.

HodcVins foi lb drew Mr. A' b. sattenti h. w. i not included.

alter hi od tiiev and of suflici price given for them did Abbey said There were other piece which he thought valuable. o. '01 was one. and ought to have been photographed. About 11,.

been given f. No. 204. 212. a s.

of four pear shaped vases, which cost 14.000 275. a large s. vr. st 1700; No. 3.i.

a pair of oviform vases, they type. One of those art ides was going to be iihnv On Febmarr 3 he brought to the att ntion of th executors what had occurred between himself and Mr. Abbey. lefler was then written br the I executon to 1 1. defendants nskintr them to send a 1 representative to meet the executors, as they wished I to have their opinion npon th.

matter. He went I his father, and placed the the reserves was a letter was written instruct i to place the reierves upon the ht letter. On March i there were ti Liking. The Mr.Hannen. ked th The? ub dav of the sale.

fn tK firs crowded ron. and tuanv font present. Mr. Roi.n point. defendants meetings of the nt r.

I. which dubt ba.1 Iw en cast, and thetn back the dealers frsen whom they had bought. The defendants bidding. On large way. th Mr.

sigkins we ilo.L'.i:.s in a ve joint out tint Ilolgkins was o.t of their that lie. gen 1 sal, and 'that thev had possession of knowledge supiiorting th Th. a r.W. an.1 Ok bid.lini me i.i.h.ing in th com dir.u' Mr. H.

dekin. thinl day the life Ma lot 213 he had fixed a said that Hodgki Agnew was the principal speaker. Agn was 11.470. He angry at the suggestion of upsetting the ke.I him whv and th large nd sa thai take Mjd hey wa Mid that the inclusion of inf. ri id Urge type r.

slgki th 1 ins. would d. pr iat the decided in l. He aid that th utors had il t. t.

on or in. catalogue lo them, ns thev after the sale kn. hat put ioi i a'. tain. fiom ir una cm.

wr Messrs. nlgkins gcsal it could retelling th matter to the dealer. d. s. rihe it.

Th result The action ver.li. of wa.s gr be illustrat d. On twr 28 he repirted to the ex. nitors what ha.1 taken place. On January 20 he received a proof of tbe catalogue.

On th catalogue some were in largo letters and some in small. He noticed that with regard to those in small letters large sums had been paid by his father. On January 22 lie saw Mr. Abbey again, and poke to him about it. He called his atten(Sbn to particular articles which had cost large sums.

Nos. sc. 1 7, 154. 170. 171.

104. 218. 215, 278, 30U. These articles were not in large type. Mr.

Abbey said they only put in large tvpe those that would attract the attention of large dealers. He said th. could not put those articles in large type, although he appreciated the large oint the executors had to ave entirely defendants decision. He accordingly left er in their hands, df th nrti. l.

he c.ll.d attention to, three were altered from small to large ha. I. and said it would I ouite useless to do that suggested that they ought to protect article i.v ing a sufljei nt r. r. upon them.

Th defendants advised the executors li ngly that the sale should be carried through as a no reserve sale. On March 2 the executors met and termin.d to art on the de fendants' r.d ic Mar 2 he sale was advert is in Th II nt again to Mr. Abbey and ih e.meritl. a it I i regard to Ilav. v.p,; ti.

la.ooo. Th executor, informed Mr. Agn. writ, had issued against U. dgkin and Mr.

Aen said was glad, and ii.tr they would be In shown up. and le ugh! th. sweators had an over wh hninglv str np case and hist lb lgkins would be sure settl the action. He said he i not understand a man of Mr. Hottgkina'i repute limit spurious china, as hid always considered him ttr and Dresden china was good.

Mr. Abbey explained what large type meant, and that they dared not put any lots which were not; of exceptional rarity into large type, as it was a kind of guarantee that th" chins designated was above suspicion. Mr. Abbey said he had been assisted by Mr. Guy Laking in the production of the catalogue.

Mr. Meckel asked whether Mr. Abbey had not been bidding against Hodgkins on IL dgkine instruct iis in order to keep up prices. Abbey looked taken aback and said th would nut I'd 1 th lv. to an act of that that if they were bidding it uild have for nitlfll ir.

Some of the pieces Hodkins had Iswiht at tbe sale were inspected at his li Klgkins's! premises, end in injunction granted to j.t..p their rarther safe. Th defendanta were mtiil to give information as to the purchasers of lots pij rtnd Th d. fendants said it was a ready pn tiee bo giro the defendants c. ive.1 74 per cent. the chin.

sold 13.100 in alL r. Iv Mr. 1 LrsH. He did mike an imputations agsinst the good faith any body connected Ml parr over the sale of the as be had more to oil the china than the rest, of the family. of the executors, i spotting them and consulting with them as to what ought to be His brotheri.

the executors. He hil had smail aiincs with Messrs. L. Simiu 'iKls and it strm him that he might Mr. Lewis.

At (g :r.g below their the executors. He i4c that arrange Ight th. mst make effort to out a reserve upon' the for which large sums liad U'en paid, in order prevent th pi. ces from Is ing saerit'ieed and that, although thev agreed the sale should 1m without se, ought to have a er us.n them. He do Mr.

Abley nbout some artirl and what th. would fetch. I Abbey said he would write about it. On March 2, the defendants sent list with prices. He wrote against the pi.

I la suggested reserve prices based I nd he mil n. und. i. s. He hoped though Mr.

LrsH. Io as framl in aa Act Tiie ftiw 1 Mr. Till mi Hn on person to secretly i thai ho Tho s. vplaitv .1 by Huggi as preferred by the appellant st the respondent, a farmer Devonshire, for keeping a doi The iuatices dismissed the in this case. Tb case stated (a) si ti his premise a dog for which good It is Mn.

I tint th defendants it had duly obtained an exemp n. glig. nt ins nop of tlv se. things was done. I ided a staircase which was rbetly safe when used his farm, and th.

178. section 22 (2i and Iic gs Act. 1IH.6; (b) that on August lie. constabk saw the respondent cut i reaping machine which the respondent ji dog, for which be had such exemption, Ti abbils 1 in the .1 irk and that not to See that the ur Im. pi 1 1 here what is said that whereas the li hcr.fo, ircas.

ell had orovi.led thai which was iwrfcctlv s'fe if it the respondent: used us int led to be us. d. yet a thing the rabbiu. and that tb plained ii this, hat. the defendants did not provid, by and otueis in tbe presence of and which could 1 mange of the respondent and butcher I rabbits caught rattle, and at the deg the use i4 the dnr aa aforesaid a than s.Jelv for tending sh.s or The justic a found that the reapondent did iatn.

lf on. and that the word mejy in a. tim 22 2) of the Customs and Inland KereBu, IfcTk and ctie.n of th, I logs t. Old not imp, that a dog exempted under the WB dOC half la lift whicJi if actuated from below l.v a butcher1! lid Lav injury to the plaintiff. Would lie extending tl doctrine of Mlllfl far beyond the limit to which it baa ied at pn sent if we were to dismiss this do that would in effect be to overrule the Court of Appeal ill lluggett contended onbehalf of the appellant used for spirting purposes, and that hink an exemption tne resnonaent must lor tending sneep iili I Miers." which ot en I his appeal must I.M ju.lg: it do.

efT L.avc pp al was given. Solicitors. W. P. Havies fot St routs for tb.

defendants. nt to the plaintiff If. F. They also found that it bad been a custom "wisfariiariv vearenast to ncnnitdoirs exempted kfeLM to be in harvest fields for the destruction i TJ" ami dunna harvest operations. e1orr JtsTti Liwpam.e oiuf a hpectal Jury.

hey dismissed the information. COCK AXIl tiifbs v. chrihtir, vanwn, axd woods FTChl? Actkn Sinst Messrs. Christie. fid use it solely for the purpose I the late Mr.

C. J. Iiirkins. late partner in the flm rattle. II ne tnougnt ins.

tue Messrs. uiriuns and jjones, against Messrs. Chi to in the case be should send her inquiry, bat in the face of fair to do so. It ot suggested that in ordinary circumstances the to tending sheep or cattle, tbii the magistrates bound to hold i3L into the field where Its master was machine and tbe doc wee urged iZTtJ0P to chase tbe rabbiu and the master Sl'fop them, tbe master was wing tbe dog for An PufTK would he strain tbe language of tbe L1' other case it wan found that the had used tbe dog for tbe purpose of chasing it waTan eYS kioltbe terms 15 Lmk he would come to Tery different a Ford, Lioyd, and for H. MicheJ be woll known auctfaeer.

of works of art. to recover lamagc for negligenHy preparing a catalogue of rhina b.donging to tb late Mr. lickin. Th de they had exercised all due preparing the catalogue, snd irt critics Tn preparing the cata fendanta pleaded ana proper care i were not acting aa Hlr E. Carson, K.C..

Mr. C. F. GUI. K.C..

Mr. McCardie. and Mr. Field appeared for the pUintiffc Xr Lush. K.C7.

Mr. Simon, K.C., and Mr. NeUaon for the defendants. When the Court adjourned yesterday Mr. A.

W. TMlMgl. a son of tbe late Mr. C. J.

Dickma. of Mean. mad notes tn a dUryof the Interview with Mr. Abbey. Re reported thereault to the executors, and aub eqnently, on it, a letter waa written to tbe defeadanta.

The defendants wrote back that a careful catalogue hadtobT amdemrf 0mt they would illustrate certain pieces inthe cataJorne He bad hfa mtm a tJtoRi Tho Phya cian to LwlfZi fl The Ph8 cian I I 1 i H.M. the Queen Mother of Italy atwJ A the Duke of Saxe Cobur I Pr. E. Penichetti "I have fed Sanatoen in i JjOXjSSSiUKfl DrFlorschuetz I hare repeatedly proved Sanat 3 1 several cases of Neurasthenia; in every case the Jfiagfrg'T ogeo'a value. Recently, in the case of an an 3 a nervous symptoms were greatly diminished.

I am Ltfr Bet volts woman, its etfects could be observed alter S3 13 convinced that Sanatogen is a valuable food tonic only dayf, and it entirely curui her widun a few fl 'JpHE' care of the monarcVs health is matter of ljr he highest knowledge and ability, and his words carry the Yj'' recommends a remedy. Moreover, it is qutte unprecedented The New European Entente Remarkable Agreement Among Royal Physicians The Private Physician to H.M. the King of Wurttember Dr. von Fetzer. writes I have been using Sanatogen for a number of years both in my private practice and in hospital, and have been very satisfied with tbe results I have obtained from it." THE care of the monarch's health is a matter of national importance For this reason, the physician who is made responsible for it is always a be highest knowledge and ability, and his words carry tbe utmost weight.

It is extremely rare that a royal physician publicly recommends a remedy. Moreover, it is quite unprecedented that no less than nine physicians to Royalty should have done so. as they have in the case of Sanatogen These eminent authorities endorse Sanatogen because they know that this scientific compound of organic phosphorus and proteid is the food and tonic for worn out nerves and debilitated bodies. Their encomiums are endorsed by more than 12.000 physicians. Such evidence must be conclusive that what Sanatogen has done for the patients of these physicians, it will also do for you.

A new lease of health more strength, more energy. brain power and nerve power that is what Sanatogen offers, whether the user be a king or the humblest of bis subjects. Try Sanatogen yourself of all chemists, price 19 to 96 and send for a free book to the Sanatogen 12 Chenies Street. Loudon, C. The Private Physician to H.M.

the King of Saxony Or. Tillman ni. Surgeon General to tbe Royal Saxon Army Corps and Professor of Surgery at the University of Leipsic "I and shall always be. a great admirer of Sanatogen." SANATOGEN THEROYL TONIC.